Good afternoon. Im the appellant dr. Robert harris. Ill start with health issues. The Planning Commission did not properly apply the following sections of the planning code. Section 303, condition [inaudible]. When not be detrimental to the Health Safety or welfare of persons right residing in this vicinity. In response to this, the final motion to the height and bulk of the building accessibility, landscaping, they did mention preventing emissions. Just fine, but smoking has been prohibited since 1980s. By this conditional use, we are referring to the unhealthy effects of the [inaudible]. The cigarettes [inaudible] e cigarettes containing nicotine and the [inaudible] in the basement. In 2008 the board of so supervisors unanimously passed and that the fine tobacco to [inaudible]. The language disorder and supports our position. It states, tobacco paraphernalia excusing it states the gold this organization establishment. And related Health Safety and general welfare problems. In the cit
Was an electic districts and Tall Buildings and newer buildings and it fits into a eclectic mix so i want to encourage you to support the categorical exemption determined by the Planning Department, and not accept this appeal and i will leave the last two minutes unplanned to bruno. Well, i guess theres not much more to say. Arnie has been very good to detail in the report that was given to you our rebuttal very carefully how this project is not a there is any reason to appeal this categorical exemption. All of the materials of the building have been changed over the years. The building has been modified from the 20s and 30s when a bay was added. Wednesday have been replaced and are. Windows are replaced and aluminum. The siding is recent in the last 10, 12 years. We are doing our best to take a building that is extremely distressed and were trying to bring it back to life and usable for our family. This is a lead project. Its sustainable. Were trying to bring a forward looking buildin
Appellates. From the lees. This is a letter for qualified support for the residential reconstruction at 312 green street. We have always assumed this small bungalow would be remodeled with an additional story. We have seen the expansions of the properties to the east of 312 green at 310 and 308 green street. The construction will have Significant Impact on the property but on balance we support it because the owners, bruno and suzanne kakter worked with us to mitigate the impacts and the light well and common roof deck would result from any expansion of the property. We have been meeting with them over the past year and they have been to our home to observe and discuss the concerns. Their latest plans respect and mitigate our concerns to the extent possible given theyre adding two floors to the building. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. I am a neighborhood friend, long time friend of bruno and a homeowner in north beach and being here today brings back memories when i had a d
Setback the top two stories to in consideration of views of our neighbor to the west who is completely in support of this project. Here you can see from the rear of the project this is where we started. We since removed the roof top penthouse with elevator and the pits in order to preserve the views of the roof top for the neighbor. It was important to retain accessibility to the area and my parents are elderly and one is wheelchair bound and this was a concession in the attempts that we gave concession to the neighbor by removing the top portions of the building and the front of the building. Weve done this our building actually is not as tall as the neighbors building nor as large. I will simply say that heres a good picture of the top of the hill which our building sits at. This is in the neighbors building and our building here. If you consider that on a horizontal level field the neighbors building is much taller than ours. Its a 4,000 square foot building. We are proposing 75 of